|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2018 15:57:54 GMT
Your point would only be valid if a person refused to serve/employ a homosexual BECAUSE they were homosexual, and there was no overriding reason why they should not be served/employed (access to children, etc.) However, the Christian bakers are being asked to violate their own beliefs by servicing a non-existent "marriage", so there is no comparison between the two whatsoever. To be quite blunt, by defending the "right" of private business to discriminate on the grounds of race (by opposing protections against it), you are heading into dangerous territory. Here you go again. "Heading into dangerous territory", "perilously close", guilt by association, Nazi Germany... I was going to be blunt in return, but I decided I'd better not. It is dangerous territory when you are prepared to facilitate racial segregation in the name of opposing political correctness. Sorry, but that is totally indefensible and if you are not just winding me up at this stage, then I have no choice but to call for you to be banned. This is not a call I make lightly, as I have tried for a long, long time to reason with you and for a while there was a chance that that strategy would pay off. But alas it hasn't, and perhaps this is what it will take to get you to come to your senses.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 15:58:44 GMT
Your point would only be valid if a person refused to serve/employ a homosexual BECAUSE they were homosexual, and there was no overriding reason why they should not be served/employed (access to children, etc.) However, the Christian bakers are being asked to violate their own beliefs by servicing a non-existent "marriage", so there is no comparison between the two whatsoever. To be quite blunt, by defending the "right" of private business to discriminate on the grounds of race (by opposing protections against it), you are heading into dangerous territory. The marriage is legitimate in law. Why should our religious views be privileged? If you can't foresee a time when male only ordination and perhaps even access to the sacraments for non-Catholics will fall foul of the same anti-discrimination laws, I submit you are short-sighted.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2018 16:02:23 GMT
The marriage is legitimate in law. Why should our religious views be privileged? If you can't foresee a time when male only ordination and perhaps even access to the sacraments for non-Catholics will fall foul of the same anti-discrimination laws, I submit you are short-sighted. For starters, access to the sacraments for non-Catholics is a non-issue as if they really want access, nothing is stopping them from converting. As for ordination, that is not a right but a privilege, and indeed married men cannot be ordained at present or if they are seen as unfit by the seminary authorities.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 16:05:08 GMT
Here you go again. "Heading into dangerous territory", "perilously close", guilt by association, Nazi Germany... I was going to be blunt in return, but I decided I'd better not. It is dangerous territory when you are prepared to facilitate racial segregation in the name of opposing political correctness. Sorry, but that is totally indefensible and if you are not just winding me up at this stage, then I have no choice but to call for you to be banned. This is not a call I make lightly, as I have tried for a long, long time to reason with you and for a while there was a chance that that strategy would pay off. But alas it hasn't, and perhaps this is what it will take to get you to come to your senses. Freedom of association is not racial segregation. I am not proposing apartheid or any such thing. I am saying there is a good argument to allow a private citizen or group of citizens full rights to associate or do business with whomsoever they wish, for any reason or no reason at all-- unless it is a life-saving or life-preserving service. I can't really see any other way to defend civil freedom, including religious freedom, from endless social engineering. I also said I thought Ron Paul's argument was reasonable, not that I necessarily agree with him. In fact, I think it's a difficult question. But I don't have the slighest objection to being banned for calling out PC, so please go ahead and do that. Everything I have written on these topics can be easily found by those interested, and I believe my reasoning is consistent and sound. No, I am not trying to wind you up.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 16:10:03 GMT
If you can't foresee a time when male only ordination and perhaps even access to the sacraments for non-Catholics will fall foul of the same anti-discrimination laws, I submit you are short-sighted. For starters, access to the sacraments for non-Catholics is a non-issue as if they really want access, nothing is stopping them from converting. As for ordination, that is not a right but a privilege, and indeed married men cannot be ordained at present or if they are seen as unfit by the seminary authorities. And how impressed are your fellow PC warriors by this reasoning when it comes to Catholic schools, hospitals and other organisations?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2018 16:16:21 GMT
It is dangerous territory when you are prepared to facilitate racial segregation in the name of opposing political correctness. Sorry, but that is totally indefensible and if you are not just winding me up at this stage, then I have no choice but to call for you to be banned. This is not a call I make lightly, as I have tried for a long, long time to reason with you and for a while there was a chance that that strategy would pay off. But alas it hasn't, and perhaps this is what it will take to get you to come to your senses. Freedom of association is not racial segregation. I am not proposing apartheid or any such thing. I also said I thought Ron Paul's argument was reasonable, not that I necessarily agree with him. In fact, I think it's a difficult question. But I don't have the slighest objection to being banned for calling out PC, so please go ahead and do that. Everything I have written on these topics can be easily found by those interested, and I believe my reasoning is consistent and sound. You're not proposing it, true, but you are willing to facilitate it. While you did say that you thought that view was reasonable, you also said this: In other words, you were defending the right of businesses to refuse service to people on the grounds of the colour of their skin (which is what the Civil Rights Act prevents) by equating it with Christian bakers refusing to service gay "marriages". It is not my decision whether or not to ban you, though if I was the administrator, I would do so.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2018 16:22:12 GMT
For starters, access to the sacraments for non-Catholics is a non-issue as if they really want access, nothing is stopping them from converting. As for ordination, that is not a right but a privilege, and indeed married men cannot be ordained at present or if they are seen as unfit by the seminary authorities. And how impressed are your fellow PC warriors by this reasoning when it comes to Catholic schools, hospitals and other organisations? You are assuming I support them in everything, whereas I am not a PC warrior at all. I simply judge each case by its own merits, as no one (bar the Church) is always right.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2018 16:30:43 GMT
Freedom of association is not racial segregation. I am not proposing apartheid or any such thing. I also said I thought Ron Paul's argument was reasonable, not that I necessarily agree with him. In fact, I think it's a difficult question. But I don't have the slighest objection to being banned for calling out PC, so please go ahead and do that. Everything I have written on these topics can be easily found by those interested, and I believe my reasoning is consistent and sound. You're not proposing it, true, but you are willing to facilitate it. While you did say that you thought that view was reasonable, you also said this: In other words, you were defending the right of businesses to refuse service to people on the grounds of the colour of their skin (which is what the Civil Rights Act prevents) by equating it with Christian bakers refusing to service gay "marriages". It is not my decision whether or not to ban you, though if I was the administrator, I would do so. To put this in context, what would be your reaction to someone who claimed that they're personally opposed to abortion (as many Democrats do), yet oppose making it illegal. We would (hopefully) all think that that person was at best facilitating the murder of unborn children. Even though abortion is a much more serious issue than what is being discussed here, your argument is strikingly similar to that used in the example above. Just some food for thought.
|
|
|
America
Jul 3, 2018 16:41:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 16:41:20 GMT
So do you think everything you consider immoral should be made illegal? That is totalitarianism! And we are seeing a kind of soft totalitarianism at work today.
Abortion ends a life. It's of an order of gravity far different from freedom of speech and association which some or most don't like, but which doesn't harm anyone
|
|
|
America
Jul 3, 2018 16:49:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 16:49:56 GMT
Political correctness is, amongst other things, an attempt to impose equality by social engineering. Equality is impossible to achieve outside formal equality, so the social engineering gets ever more intense. You indicated this yourself when you said Starbucks was a liberal business. Nothing is ever enough. One incident, which I believe was probably contrived, and in which nobody was done any lasting harm, results in the entire chain nationwide being closed for indoctrination training. No egalitarian will ever say their goal is attained, or even close enough.
This exchange has become overheated and I rather regret that. I don't mean to personally attack you, some of my rhetoric was unfortunate, but I see PC as an unspeakable menace, like the Borg in Star Trek. I feel morally obliged to hit back at it on every front available to me (except where it would be too foolhardy).
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 4, 2018 8:27:04 GMT
Here you go again. "Heading into dangerous territory", "perilously close", guilt by association, Nazi Germany... I was going to be blunt in return, but I decided I'd better not. It is dangerous territory when you are prepared to facilitate racial segregation in the name of opposing political correctness. Sorry, but that is totally indefensible and if you are not just winding me up at this stage, then I have no choice but to call for you to be banned. This is not a call I make lightly, as I have tried for a long, long time to reason with you and for a while there was a chance that that strategy would pay off. But alas it hasn't, and perhaps this is what it will take to get you to come to your senses. You've been quite personal here. I'm not offended in the least, probably you have cooled down since, but I will take it as a justification to make some remarks in reply which are rather personal, but which are as much motivated by fascination as anything else. Young Ireland, I've read your posts on this forum and elsewhere for many years now, and I'm increasingly struck by the fact that they fall into two categories, pretty much...identification of schism/heresy/unorthodoxy/spiritual fraud, and identification of racism/fascism/xenophobia/anti-semitism (as you see them). I think the vast majority of your posts would fit into these two categories. (And I nearly always agree with you when it comes to the first group, including about Medjugorje.) Whenever I've posted on subjects such as movies, philosophy, spirituality, poetry, etc. etc....and I think I've posted on a pretty diverse range of subjects, here and elsewhere....well, I think there are a very few occasions when you've had anything to say. You only seem to come to life when it's a matter of denouncing schismatics or denouncing racism etc. Oh, I'm not being fair...you have also shown an interest (and impressive knowledge) when it comes to geography and administration. You seem to have a knowledge of fringe groups, both amongst schismatics and the political right, which is truly staggering. I've often wondered how long you must spend trawling them. You seem to know everything about every single one of them. I'm genuinely impressed and fascinated by this. Don't you think there is a danger your world-view is a bit constricted? You seem insensible to any kind of ethnic pride, national sentiment, attachment to tradition, love of liberty for its own sake, etc. etc. and see it purely and simply as xenophobia and racism. Might this be a lack of imagination on your part?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 4, 2018 8:57:26 GMT
It is dangerous territory when you are prepared to facilitate racial segregation in the name of opposing political correctness. Sorry, but that is totally indefensible and if you are not just winding me up at this stage, then I have no choice but to call for you to be banned. This is not a call I make lightly, as I have tried for a long, long time to reason with you and for a while there was a chance that that strategy would pay off. But alas it hasn't, and perhaps this is what it will take to get you to come to your senses. You've been quite personal here. I'm not offended in the least, probably you have cooled down since, but I will take it as a justification to make some remarks in reply which are rather personal, but which are as much motivated by fascination as anything else. Young Ireland, I've read your posts on this forum and elsewhere for many years now, and I'm increasingly struck by the fact that they fall into two categories, pretty much...accusations of schism/heresy/unorthodoxy/spiritual fraud, and accusations of racism/fascism/xenophobia/anti-semitism. I think the vast majority of your posts would fit into these two categories. (And I nearly always agree with you when it comes to the first group, including about Medjugorje.) That's probably a fair analysis, Maolsheachlann, I do relish debate and if I am quiet on other topics, it's because I don't feel that I've anything extra to add.Whenever I've posted on subjects such as movies, philosophy, spirituality, poetry, etc. etc....and I think I've posted on a pretty diverse range of subjects, here and elsewhere....well, I think there are a very few occasions when you've had anything to say. You only seem to come to life when it's a matter of denouncing schismatics or denouncing racism etc. Oh, I'm not being fair...you have also shown an interest (and impressive knowledge) when it comes to geography and administration. I suppose that's because I've never really had an interest in those topics. In fact, I've always found fiction difficult to follow (alternate history is another matter though).You seem to have a knowledge of fringe groups, both amongst schismatics and the political right, which is truly staggering. I've often wondered how long you must spend trawling them. You seem to know everything about every single one of them. I'm genuinely impressed and fascinated by this. Don't you think there is a danger your world-view is a bit constricted? You seem insensible to any kind of ethnic pride, national sentiment, attachment to tradition, love of liberty for its own sake, etc. etc. and see it purely and simply as xenophobia and racism. Might this be a lack of imagination on your part? I'll admit that's a fair criticism and is one I've been trying to overcome. Also, I'm not really much of an abstract thinker and so abstract concepts like nations (in the ethnic sense) are difficult for me to comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 4, 2018 9:01:59 GMT
You've been quite personal here. I'm not offended in the least, probably you have cooled down since, but I will take it as a justification to make some remarks in reply which are rather personal, but which are as much motivated by fascination as anything else. Young Ireland, I've read your posts on this forum and elsewhere for many years now, and I'm increasingly struck by the fact that they fall into two categories, pretty much...accusations of schism/heresy/unorthodoxy/spiritual fraud, and accusations of racism/fascism/xenophobia/anti-semitism. I think the vast majority of your posts would fit into these two categories. (And I nearly always agree with you when it comes to the first group, including about Medjugorje.) That's probably a fair analysis, Maolsheachlann, I do relish debate and if I am quiet on other topics, it's because I don't feel that I've anything extra to add.Whenever I've posted on subjects such as movies, philosophy, spirituality, poetry, etc. etc....and I think I've posted on a pretty diverse range of subjects, here and elsewhere....well, I think there are a very few occasions when you've had anything to say. You only seem to come to life when it's a matter of denouncing schismatics or denouncing racism etc. Oh, I'm not being fair...you have also shown an interest (and impressive knowledge) when it comes to geography and administration. I suppose that's because I've never really had an interest in those topics. In fact, I've always found fiction difficult to follow (alternate history is another matter though).You seem to have a knowledge of fringe groups, both amongst schismatics and the political right, which is truly staggering. I've often wondered how long you must spend trawling them. You seem to know everything about every single one of them. I'm genuinely impressed and fascinated by this. Don't you think there is a danger your world-view is a bit constricted? You seem insensible to any kind of ethnic pride, national sentiment, attachment to tradition, love of liberty for its own sake, etc. etc. and see it purely and simply as xenophobia and racism. Might this be a lack of imagination on your part? I'll admit that's a fair criticism and is one I've been trying to overcome. Also, I'm not really much of an abstract thinker and so abstract concepts like nations (in the ethnic sense) are difficult for me to comprehend.Well, you took those comments very well. I suppose people just have different mentalities, God knows my own blind spots are as large as Jupiter. (Classical music is one world which is, sadly, a completely closed book to me. Economics is another.) I'm sorry this exchange got so heated. I think we are just going to have to avoid debates on this subject because I get too riled up by political correctness (as I see it) to remain temperate. After all, we are on the same side when it comes to the things that really matter. I'm going to restrict my postings on this forum to purely Catholic or uncontroversial subjects. (It's not just you, I often find myself strongly at odds with Hibernicus on matters such as nationality and supposed prejudice. And since we are the three main posters that gets me quite irritable. Of course, I agree with you both on ecclesiastical subjects.)
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 4, 2018 9:21:08 GMT
Well, you took those comments very well. I suppose people just have different mentalities, God knows my own blind spots are as large as Jupiter. (Classical music is one world which is, sadly, a completely closed book to me. Economics is another) I'm sorry this exchange got so heated. I think we are just going to have to avoid debates on this subject because I get too riled up by political correctness (as I see it) to remain temperate. After all, we are on the same side when it comes to the things that really matter. I'm going to restrict my postings on this forum to purely Catholic or uncontroversial subjects. (It's not just you, I often find myself strongly at odds with Hibernicus on matters such as nationality and supposed prejudice. And since we are the three main posters that gets me quite irritable. Of course, I agree with you both on ecclesiastical subjects.) I appreciate your kind words, Maolsheachlann, though to be quite honest, your comments about the Civil Rights Act were the straw that broke the camel's back for me, I'm afraid. Now, if you are willing to retract those comments, I'm happy to move on as if nothing had happened, but in all honesty, it would be difficult to remain friends with someone who thought there was a case for giving businesses the right to refuse service on the basis of skin colour. This is nothing personal towards you, indeed I'd be sorry to see you go or end our friendship, and I do hope you understand this.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 4, 2018 9:33:36 GMT
Well, you took those comments very well. I suppose people just have different mentalities, God knows my own blind spots are as large as Jupiter. (Classical music is one world which is, sadly, a completely closed book to me. Economics is another) I'm sorry this exchange got so heated. I think we are just going to have to avoid debates on this subject because I get too riled up by political correctness (as I see it) to remain temperate. After all, we are on the same side when it comes to the things that really matter. I'm going to restrict my postings on this forum to purely Catholic or uncontroversial subjects. (It's not just you, I often find myself strongly at odds with Hibernicus on matters such as nationality and supposed prejudice. And since we are the three main posters that gets me quite irritable. Of course, I agree with you both on ecclesiastical subjects.) I appreciate your kind words, Maolsheachlann, though to be quite honest, your comments about the Civil Rights Act were the straw that broke the camel's back for me, I'm afraid. Now, if you are willing to retract those comments, I'm happy to move on as if nothing had happened, but in all honesty, it would be difficult to remain friends with someone who thought there was a case for giving businesses the right to refuse service on the basis of skin colour. This is nothing personal towards you, indeed I'd be sorry to see you go or end our friendship, and I do hope you understand this. I think there's a case (and I'm not saying anything more than that) for giving businesses (and other private organizations) the right to refuse service, membership, etc. for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. (I would make an exception for essential services or goods.) I'm sorry, but I can't retract that. This isn't some ad hoc idea I blurted out in the course of a heated debate. I've been inclining towards this view for some time now-- a few years, perhaps. Because I've watched in horror as the principle of anti-discrimination is used to bulldoze freedoms and bring about sameness, to an ever-increasing degree. I think it would be wrong of a business to discriminate against someone on the basis of skin colour, and I would not want to patronise such a business. People could boycott it and publicly shame it if they wished. But once you allow the principle of government coercion when it comes to who people choose to associate with or do business with, I don't see how you can object to a whole flood of other interventions on personal freedoms. Indeed, this is the very precedent that is commonly used to justify an ever-increasing raft of social engineering, one to which there seems to be no end in sight. (Mount Athos is only allowed to restrict entry to males because of special exemption from EU anti-discrimination law, for instance. That's not a satisfactory situation.) Freedom of association and expression is under such assault today that I really feel we have to draw the line as firmly as we can. It's nothing personal in my case, either. As always, I am willing to submit to Church authority on this matter, as on all matters.
|
|